However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

The Defendants are those operating the F Gameland in Gwangju-si E.

No game products related business entity shall allow any person to gamble or perform other speculative acts using game products, or leave such person to do so.

Nevertheless, from March 22, 2014 to April 1, 2014, the Defendants conspired with each other to establish 75 games, which are the games, the acquisition and loss of which is determined by a simple method, and which are the games, the acquisition and loss of which are determined by which the acquisition and loss are determined, and then enter the points into the points on the points card when the customers are engaged in the game, and if the points remain, the said points card is not a way to clearly confirm the identity, such as fingerprinting, but rather to simply identify the identity, by issuing a simple name and telephone number, and making a transaction between customers, so that they perform the speculative act using the game by providing the same property value as the bearer securities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant A (Evidence No. 13);

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Each statement of H, B, A, and I;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of two Acts and subordinate statutes to the list of seizure, control site photographs, permits of general game providing business operators, points keeping cards, details of transactions, and game operating manuals;

1. The Defendants: Article 44 (1) 1 and Article 28 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively,

1. Defendants subject to suspended execution: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances are considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Defendants of a community service order: Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. Defendant B: The reason for sentencing under Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act is unfavorable.